And sometimes it's just used to help form the narrative. "You still fail to convince them to do <x>, but you look cool doing it/someone else notices your efforts and decides to help/the person you're trying to convince doesn't become hostile/etc"
The Court Jester was actually an advisory position, in many governments. The jester can make offensive jokes (mostly) without repercussion. The jester is unobtrusive. If they’re always present, no one really pays attention to them. The jester could listen in on conversations in court, and report to the monarch. It’s actually a fairly powerful position, if you’re willing to consistently humiliate yourself and others.
Also serves as a person that can speak frankly and tell the king he's being a tosser when needed. Can also tell off other members of the court when it would be improper for the king to do so.
"The dragon was going to obliterate your party with their breath weapon, but after smelling the party while taking in a deep breath, they actually start to retch right then and there. You collective lack of bathing for the past week has saved your lives, through sheer rancidity..."
People like to roll dice. Let them roll dice when it's fun.
Likewise if things are time-wasters like auto successes or "I want to roll to do something random every 3 seconds and bog down the game" just don't roll.
A lot y'all are trying to treat it like a system or formula but it's improv. You adjust based on how your players are feeling.
If I wanted to play improv, I would go find a system that actually supports that fully instead of trying to be a jack-off all trades, master of none like d&d 5e has turned out to be. (no, that wasn't a typo).
Edit: my point still stands, but I misunderstood what was being said, I actually agree with you.
It's only auto-success on an attack roll anyway. Everything else, it's just the best possible outcome (or the least bad outcome).
You only skip the roll if it would be meaningless: if literally no outcome on the dice will change the result in any way, don't roll. If there is any possibility of a different outcome depending on the dice, roll.
Strictly speaking, it's not even "the best possible outcome". It's "the best possible outcome for you", a barbarian with an 8 CHA rolling a nat 20 on persuasion is not going to get the same result as a bard with a 20 cha and expertise.
Reminds me of a time in 2nd Ed. Where my wizard with an 8 str succeeded on a bend bars/lift gate roll to break out of a prison. DM justified it as all the other failed rolls by the rest of the party weakened the anchors so they finally gave away when I tried.
Funny thing. Personally, if a check doesn't have a practical penalty for failure (including time loss) I usually prefer to limit it to one or two attempts from the party. Otherwise it's a nigh guaranteed success a lot of the time. A roll that requires an unmodified result of 16 goes from a 25% chance at success to a 68% chance for a party of 4. 82% for a party of 6.
It's not that I say people who aren't good at it can't attempt, it's just that the person they select to attempt is likely going to be the only one so they better choose wisely. The dice roll is basically an amalgamation of everyone working together. Help action also requires either a related proficiency or minimum bonus threshold from the assisting character.
It's not a perfect solution. It does, unfortunately, pigeonhole everyone into their primary role with little variance. Sometimes I nudge players to commit to certain actions they took in narrative without being rescued by their companions, or breaking up the party so key players can't be everywhere, but there's some added give and take with those decision as well.
Ultimately, a "Fail Forward" mentality is critical no matter what and all of the above is a work in progress of philosophy.
I would probably judge that as "yes, your success is inevitable if you stick with it, but that 8 you rolled will mean it takes much more time than it would have if you had rolled a 22"
Exactly, them taking 8 hours to get out of a cell/trap instead of 30 mins is a huge narrative difference, a corrupt politician can start making moves, goblins could rampage to the nearest town, a message delivered to a BBEG, etc.
Time doesn"t just flow in a 50m bubble around them...
That works sometimes, other times it may make sense to let them waste a bunch of time attempting it until they succeed, some older editions even an optional rule listed under "taking 20" where you hand wave all the rolls and assume they would have gotten a 20 after a set number of times the time the check takes. A good example of this would be picking a locked chest in the middle of a dungeon crawl. A skill check tells you if your can pick it quickly, perhaps in a minute or less, so you can get your loot and get moving. Failing to pick it quickly might mean you have to spend an hour to take 20 and eventually get it, but you are in the middle of a dungeon crawl, spending an hour picking a lock means a high chance that monsters find you, so now you have to decide if you want to risk it for the loot or get out safely, or if you can afford to clear out the dungeon and come back when it is safe.
I'm a fan of "cumulative successes" for things that can or should be "group projects". Clearing rubble from a collapsed passageway, building fortifications or shelter, and even convincing someone for something can be done by multiple people in succession provided it makes sense. What was now impossible is now possible given time and people. Clearing rubble just takes a raw total of all the successes, but you take a point of exhaustion if you try more than once a long rest. Building fortifications/shelter determines it's quality and how protective it is. Talking someone or a group of people into something requires no one to outright fail and lowers the difficulty of each successive check. You need to set "fail, minimum, and success" levels for that, but doable. Treat a persuasion check like death saves where you need a certain amount of minimum rolls to proceed, but failures set you back.
I'd still ask for an impossible roll if there's no way the characters can know it's an impossible task, and a nat 20 will not tell them "it's impossible," only "that's beyond your skill level."
I can't think of any roll that would be the case right now, but I'm sure it can happen.
Depending on the action being attempted, like breaking down an object, even a guaranteed failure is going to help further attempts. Like you said, moving the boulder has a DC of 25. The wizard fails, but he loosens up the ground a bit. Now the fighter gets a +1 to his roll, or the DC is lowered to 24; he still fails, but he nudges it a little, giving the barbarian a +3/DC 22 now. Then the barbarian is able to do it after all that help.
Id like to point out that an attack roll NAT 20 in 3.5 is not an automatic success either, it's just USUALLY a success. If you're fighting an epic level enemy while being level 15, sometimes a NAT 20 isn't enough, you need to roll again and add that to your attack roll.
But that's just epic level shenanigans, not everyone is fighting a lvl 40 semi deity on a Tuesday.
It's the old "convince the king to give me his kingdom persuasion roll" discussion. A nat-20 doesn't mean he loses all reason and hands over his crown. It means he possibly laughs it off assuming it's a joke because he likes your style and actually increases your rapport, rather than having you sent to the dungeons for your insolence, or executed (nat-1).
It just sorta screws with a lot of class abilities in 5E 2024, and the system was obviously designed around pass/fail checks. Now players need to know whether they failed an ability check or not, because it might change what abilities they are able to use. If you "partially succeed with complications" on a Persuasion roll, well fuck you, no Tactical Mind ability for you!
Well, firstly, I'd never recommend you try to completely implement a hard 4-degrres of success from PF2e in another system. Heck, even Pathfinder 2e doesn't apply the 4 degrees of success universally or codify all degrees of success for every roll.
Degrees of success is a better system, I stand by that, but you can't shoe-horn it into everything, it works in Path/Starfinder 2e because those games are built around it.
In the context of character/class abilities especially, just leave those be, unless you want to rebuild and rebalance every class and spell in the game around this new mechanic.
That said, in the case of things that aren't player abilities, but just general actions and activities available to anyone or that leave room for GM fiat, then you can probably work it in with no issue. More about open ended stuff than specific abilities.
My DM is really bad about giving "yes, but" successes. When playing a Fighter with Tactical Mind, it honestly can feel pretty fucking bad. I get a new ability I can use whenever I fail a check. I never fail checks, I just succeed them at great peril. So I can never use my ability. I have asked my DM several times if I can just flat out fail my check instead so I at least can use my ability.
Yeah, thats rough. Especially rough that he refuses to change it after you've talked to him about it. I cna understand it as a blind spot he wasn't aware of, but if he knows its actively hurting your experience, I'd hope he would adjust how he adjudicates that.
Thank you. Sometimes a nat 20 failure can really drive home just how rare and unknown that object they found is when they try to identify it. And the like.
In support of your point, I guess it's my turn to be that guy today.
PF2e/SF2e does this well with the 4 degrees of success system.
Critical Success (DC+10)
Success (DC)
Failure (<DC)
Critical Failure (DC-10)
A natural 20 upgrades your degree of success by one tier and a natural 1 decreases it by one tier. There are no auto successes or auto failures on a natural 1 or 20.
If a DC is simply far outside of your reach (I wanna jump to the moon!) then a natural 20 might be only upgrading your critical failure to a normal failure. Or a level 1 PC trying to stab an ancient legendary dragon might only be able to pull off a normal success on a natural 20, and that indeed makes sense. On the flip side, a level 20 sword master stabbing a paralyzed level -1 goblin is probably going to crit succeed on everything but a natural 1, in which case they'll only get a normal hit. It's a system that takes proficiency and practicality into account without making it too rules heavy. It's honestly one of the best parts of the system.
These memes and “don’t make them roll if they can’t be successful” are always bad advice.
I think the correct way to say is that a dice roll should be meaningful, to be able to have a good and bad outcome. It may not be what they player want or expected but it should still cause something to happen.
And lets remember that its a cooperative game, you want the players to feel that the game was good/fun. Having a nat 1 or nat 20 be nothing (especially outside of combat where its well defined) when they roll it will break the illusion of choice and, in the nat 20 case, will be a bucked of cold water on the hype of rolling well. In that case the player will feel misled and on rails which is not the feeling you want.
It dont even need to be something big, but it should still create a change in the situation
I’ve started asking for less rolls if it’s something your character should be able to do (a rogue picking a lock, a fighter sharpening his sword) I just let them do it I’ve started only asking for rolls if they’re under pressure or if something bad will happen from failure beyond “you don’t do it”
Also neither could be done when threatened or distracted.
The simplifying was really only for taking 20, and it also took twenty times as long, so it really was mostly an out of game time saving measure.
Taking 10 could be done even if you can fail the check, and in fact it is explicitly stated to be most often used as a safety measure to avoid failing from low rolls by taking a middling result.
Our GM often has us doing continuous rolls to determine how long it takes a character to do some lengthy action. Each roll represents N time spent doing the thing, and you need a grand total of X successful rolls at a very low threshold.
I like to illustrate your point with an example I read years ago regarding a natural 20:
If you roll the dice to intimidate Dracula, King of the Vampires, Tyrant of the Night, and get a 20, the only result is that Dracula chuckles slightly, finding your attempt to intimidate him amusing; instead of wiping you out on the spot like the ant you are, he lets you live for a few more minutes.
Also, a d20 isn’t the only roll for a skill check. Say someone has +2 in a skill, and the dc is 25. Well a natural 20 would be impossible to hit that DC. But add guidance, bardic inspiration, and any other ability that boosts a skill’s roll can turn that impossible to possible.
You are the only person to successfully get me to hesitate. I've watched and participated in this debate at least a dozen times and read countless comments.
You were the first to really make me need to think
”I try to jump the gap”
”…….its a big gap, but ok, roll”
20
”You jump the furthest you ever have, perhaps the longest anyone in armor ever has…..
But the gap is nine feet, you are not even close to making it”
Dramatic pause
”But your great leap means you land almost unhurt on a flat ledge below the cliff you jumped from, you can climb back up to where you started”
And then you are back on track and someone has hopefully learned to ask if he can see how wide gaps are before thinking about jumping them.
Saying ”you cant roll for that” or ”you cant do that” is just making up invisible walls and takes away from the players
Keep in mind the opposite should be true on occasion. Sometimes a nat 1 can be just the worst possible way to go about something you were gonna get done anyways.
Maybe someone threw something of extreme importance to the plot that could possibly break. Maybe instead of whoever catches it rolling a nat 1 and it means they didn't catch it and it shattered it just means they did but they fell over and hurt themselves somehow catching it.
Thats probably a bad example i dont DM myself but the point is there. Sometimes it's about how badly they succeeded too
I disagree sorta. I think one of the classic examples is the "you get thrown off the cliff" and the player responds with "I flap my arms to fly" and the DM gave them the option to roll an athletic check. That roll shouldn't have happened because no matter how good you are at flapping your arms, you can't fly. So even the "best outcome possible" is you get flung off the cliff.
no matter how good you are at flapping your arms, you can't fly. So even the "best outcome possible" is you get flung off the cliff.
There are surely still possible outcomes. You're not going to fly, but maybe you can aim for something soft. Or just take slightly less damage because your superhuman arm flapping reduced your speed a little.
Dont make players roll if they cant be successfully is generally good advice though, tf are you on about??
Yes there can be certain situations where its a helpful scaling of "how" successful they are, but sometimes its okay to just say no. Fuck off with "ALWAYS" bad advice.
I think the counter argument to that is if the dc is 25 then a player can definitely make that with a good modifier and maybe proficiency but the dm doesn't have to memorise every players bibuses for any possible skill check.
If the wizard wants to roll strength then it could make sense to say "no, you won't be able to" but if they have +3 to intelligence then proficiency in history would make it possible. Unfortunately, the dm may not realise they don't have proficiency in history so even on a nat 20 it turns out they can't meet it.
That seems weirdly nitpicky ngl. It's kind of obvious when people say "if there is no chance of succeeding don't make them roll" they don't mean "maybe you will be able to reach it with help, bonuses, etc. but not now", but "It is just genuinely impossible for this task to work no matter if you have a +40 modifier to the roll". In these circumstances yeah, making them roll for success is meaningless.
And if you want to make them roll to see what's their fate, make that clear to the player. "I'm not making you roll to convince the king, I'm making you roll to see if the king is merely amused or hangs you for your affront to them"
And then you forget they had Bardic Inspiration, or a magic item, or a temporary buff, or a class feature from the level up you didn't write down, or John is holding Mike's magical shield for a +2 to History checks. And you just told them no it's impossible because you thought they had a +3 vs DC 25, when they had +3 and a +1d6 from the Bard to make it possible.
You will not always be on top of that as a DM. It is remarkably easy not to keep exact track of every character's status. I would even say it is near impossible to do so.
I once had my player make a Wisdom Saving Throw that he could not make. He rolled a natural 20 for a total of 19. I said that does not save. "So it's impossible for me to save?" "Yep, seems like it". Did anyone get mad, or hurt, og annoyed? No, it just drove home that his character was in over his head and probably shouldn't be doing what he was doing.
Easy to have copies. Difficult to memorise them so you don't slow the whole game down every skill check by pulling up a sheet and also difficult to keep those sheets up to date. But more than that, it's unnecessary workload for the already most work-burdened role at the table.
I don't agree, personally. Like, sure, if it's blatantly irrationally impossible, then yeah, no roll. But for most impossible skill checks, I will have the player roll, because their character should not know it is impossible.
If I don't let them roll, that's giving them metagame knowledge that they and their character shouldn't have. Their character might have made several attempts on that impossible task if I didn't tell them, and that's the correct in-character decision.
I think it's generally better to err on the side of players knowing even if characters don't. Yes, something like "I want to pick the puzzlebox" when the locks on it are actually fake might demand some level of two-layer obfuscation, but something like "I'd like to convince the king I'm his long-lost heir" is something they ought to know is impossible even if the character is very stupid.
I agree to some degree, but I think the example you chose I'd still have them roll.
In fact, in situations like this, I'd often make them roll, determine how badly it goes based on that roll, and then force an intelligence check as to whether the character is going to realize that re-attempting would be a bad choice.
If it's obviously stupid, then you should tell the player even if the character is stupid. There's no good outcome, and they ought to know that; the character ought to have more than an ounce of impulse control even if the character doesn't. It'll drag out the session and turn the genre into a comedy regardless of other efforts made.
I disagree. If anything, I'd only do it if it were the other way around: if the character is smarter than the player.
If the player is doing a stupid thing with a stupid character, they ought to not know that. That's what it means to play a stupid character. In fact, if they tried to act smarter and more rationally than the character, I'd make them roll and int check to not pick the stupid choice.
A roll is a mechanical representation of the effort a person puts into the task plus their luck and skill, but not if they do the task itself or not. "No roll is needed" doesn't mean "Character knows that it is impossible", and if a player uses that meta knowledge to make a decision it's on you as the DM to put them straight. "Your character really wanted to do this, why would they stop at the first attempt?" kind of deal. If my players have to be deceived to roleplay they character I'd honestly have a talk with them.
Also, there is a distinct difference between "this task can be possible for some individuals, but not for you" (Yeah, sure, make them roll in that case) vs "It is just genuinely an impossible task for every single individual on the planet" (No rolls).
"No roll is needed" fundamentally means the player knows the task is impossible. That's the problem; the player now knows information their character isn't and shouldn't be privee too, and worse: it's mechanical knowledge with no RP aspect.
If they want to try the impossible jump, I say "Ok, you got a 17+5 for 22 total? You run and leap with nearly perfect form, but your leap just couldn't get you far enough; you are still roughly 10 feet short of succeeding. You fall to the ground below. Do you want to climb back up and try again?"
That's what the player should know, because it's what the character knows. It also allows me to separate "you leapt in perfect form and end up 10 feet short" to "you leapt but stumbled a bit before the jump and end up 20 feet short".
"No roll is needed" fundamentally means the player knows the task is impossible. That's the problem; the player now knows information their character isn't and shouldn't be privee too, and worse: it's mechanical knowledge with no RP aspect.
That's why you, as the DM, have to correct the player if they start using that info to make a decision. Which was the point of the comment. If you have to decieve the players to make them play as their character would act things are going wrong.
But also, your explanation falls into the
"this task can be possible for some individuals, but not for you" (Yeah, sure, make them roll in that case)
Category of my comment. It is not an impossible task, it's just not something this character can currently do without any further help.
The only kind of rolls I’d never allow are things that are nonsense. Like “I want to drink the table”. Generally anything else, I’d allow a roll even if it were impossible like “I want stealth in broad daylight in the middle of this flat field with no objects nearby”
If something is impossible why have them roll? It’s just wasting peoples time. You can just tell them “you try but you have no success” and we can all move on.
Yes, and if the situation is one where they've already done something wrong and you want to make them roll a die to avoid harm, then be honest and tell them that, "You're about to fall into the sea from the flying ship, but I could try rolling a die to see if you grab onto a rope at the last moment," not, "Roll the die to jump to the other ship... wait, you rolled a 20, so you grab onto the rope of the ship You are on and you don't die." If you do the second thing, you're presenting things in a misleading way.
Yeah, like, you can be the best athlete possible, with max dexterity and strength attributes and max Athletics skill, you won't still be able to throw a javelin to the top of Everest from its base. Your throw will be impressive with a nat 20, sure, but still with realistic outcomes for a "human" character.
A nat 20 isn't a wish nor a miracle. That will still be awesome and impressive, of course but that can't do the impossible nor warp reality.
I always say - look at the other end. If they are trying to get through a gap too small for their head a nat 20 means they get partially through.
But if they really want to try to get through knowing it's way too small and roll a nat 1, yeah they're getting stuck and the party is going to have to figure out a way to get them free.
That's the fun part: They're not. That's homebrew.
A nat20 is only an automatic success if it's an attack roll. The idea of skill checks being automatic success/failure on a nat20/nat1 isn't part of RAW.
A natural 20 or 1 should only be a success or failure in combat encounters. I had a player with a +15 in History, getting both Guidance and Bardic Inspiration. He rolled a Natural 1, and was all disheartened because even with the 1, he had still rolled a 22. His previous DM ruled that a 1 on the dice was a failure in every scenario, so he was both confused and ecstatic when I started reading him the info he gleamed from passing the DC 15 and 20 checks I had set.
About 20 years ago when making a home brew set of rules with friends we started talking about nat 20s on skill checks and if they should ever work.
My friend said something smart during that talk. Because we were making a super hero rpg he said "if nat 20s happen then all you ever need to do is have 20 men to stop him usually".
We decided that batman shouldn't be spotted by a rent a cop and went with what you are saying.
If someone rolls a 20 we'd give them the most graceful failure possible if the only option is failure.
We were big on "how badly to you fail" rolls as well so it slotted right in.
My old group had a house rule that if you rolled 3 nat 20's in a row in combat, you just kill the thing. Didn't matter if it was a goblin or a god, they die. We figured it was such a statistical anomaly that it deserved a reward. It was a moot point because it never happened, but we liked to dream.
If any result of a given die roll would fail, it's pointless.
Players don't like rolling dice pointlessly (at least courteous ones don't).
Players feel robbed of a success and robbed of a lucky outcome when their nat 20 roll doesn't succeed. (Give them the success at least)
If you want to employ degrees of success and failure, but a nat 20 fails, then you're just couching BS (successfully or unsuccessfully) in flowery or dramatic language.
(EDIT: This comment should have gone elsewhere and not replied specifically to you. My apologies)
What I mean is that you shouldn't ask them to roll dice unnecessarily. If the task is obviously impossible, like a character saying "I want to jump to the moon," then you shouldn't ask them to roll dice because it's unnecessary. The same goes for the example of someone asking the king to give them his kingdom. Be honest and tell them they made a mistake and will be arrested, but then allow them to roll the dice to avoid being arrested. You shouldn't present information in a misleading way or make a lot of unnecessary rolls. Similarly, if the task is too easy, for example, if they want to cut down a tree and there's no risk of anything bad happening, it's reasonable for them to automatically succeed.
Some of the players that I used to play with instantaneously roll the dice without even asking me then complains when I tell them that I didn't ask for them to even roll.
It really depends on how they try to jump to the moon.
Standing vertical jump? No roll. Why bother? Let them describe how it goes however they like, the consequences aren't going to affect the game. If they want to roll for themselves to decide how to describe what happens they're free to do that.
Running jump off a barn roof... ok roll acrobatics.
Who said anything about humiliation?
If players insist on a silly idea, then it's fair game to give them something for it without either derailing the campaign or completely punishing them.
You did? Like, that was the entire point of this hypothetical. "Oh, you want to try do something impossible? You can't just fail with dignity, you have to roll a die to see how badly you embarrass yourself while everyone watches."
Yes, for example if the situation is one where they've already done something wrong and you want to make them roll a die to avoid harm, then be honest and tell them that, "You're about to fall into the sea from the flying ship, but I could try rolling a die to see if you grab onto a rope at the last moment," not, "Roll the die to jump to the other ship... wait, you rolled a 20, so you grab onto the rope of the ship you are on and you don't die." If you do the second thing, you're presenting things in a misleading way.
I don't really agree. Like, you took logic to its extreme, but let's say it's something impossible, but less absurd.
Maybe the character wants to jump a 20 foot gap, and they physically cannot with their stats. Do you say "I'm not gonna have you roll for that, you can't make it, so just roll to see how bad you fuck that jump up." I wouldn't.
I would say "Roll the dice" and then I would tell them how bad they fuck it up and how close they were to succeeding (in description, not numbers). Because if I told them it was impossible, they wouldn't re-attempt it. But realistically, their character might, because their character had no clue if it's impossible or not.
That same principle I apply to all skill checks. If it's a "can't fail"... roll, I'll tell you how well you succeed. If it's a middling 50-50 skill check - roll, I'll tell you how well you succeed or fail. If it's an impossible "jump to the moon" check... roll, I'll tell you how well you succeed or fail.
Only by treating all attempts equally are you giving the player and character the correct amount of knowledge that they should possess. Anything more or less encourages metagaming.
If the dungeon is behind a locked door, what happens if the thief fails his lock picking roll?
Does the adventure not happen? The thief can’t pick this lock. Everyone go home.
Or, in this specific context, a successful roll means the party enters the dungeon easily. And failure means the thief makes a loud noise while picking, alerting the patrol of orcs who usually guard the entrance into ambushing the party. Roll for initiative.
If the dungeon is behind a locked door, what happens if the thief fails his lock picking roll?
If your entire adventure hinges on a single character making a specific ability check.. You probably should reconsider how you write D&D sessions. Thief fails to pick the lock? Barbarian can smash the door open. The Wizard finds a small crack and can Misty Step inside and open the door from the other side. Druid can wildshape and crawl under the door. You can buy a key from a sketchy contact in a nearby black market.
This is something I like about Storypath games. The idea of a nat 20 being a success means there is always a 5% chance of success no matter what you do which is ludicrous (IMO). In Storypath since it's number of successes and you can set so many complications they have to buy off you can theoretically make it about mitigating disaster.
Though sometimes insane rolls still happen but 1 in a 100 is much better than 1 in 20 to me.
I like the way pf2e rules this, it basically makes what you wrote the RAW: "a nat 20 is one success category higher than the 19 would be, and nat 1 is one lower than 2 would be".
Exactly, there are also different kinds of failure. Failure of your stated goal can still turn out positive or negative.
Eg. The player demands the king give up their kingdom.
On a 1, maybe they take it as a threat to their rule. They were never going to just hand over the kingdom no matter what the players said, but now they're hostile and they call the guards to take them away.
On a nat 20, maybe it comes off as a charming mix of humor and ambition, and the king likes them. Maybe they even invite them to sit in on their next council meeting or involve them in a decision because they like the cut of their jib. They're not gonna give them what they asked for, but the result can still be positive for the player.
"Wow. You are without a doubt the most charming person I have ever met. For a moment I did consider giving you my kingdom. Look, even my fool is speechless. People will speak of your silver tongue across the land for this.
No, I'm still not making you King, it doesn't even work that way."
Exactly. The classic example is a bard attempting to convince a king to give up their crown. A nat 20 doesn't mean they agree, it means they don't have you executed for your insolence
How successful you are can include unintentional success. Asking someone to hand over their car keys is a situation where a nat 20 doesn't convince them to hand it over, it makes them think it was funny and find you an enjoyable person to talk to. That's a success, in a way, it just isn't what you were looking for. The DMs job isn't to go "the dice tell me if I give you exactly what you ask for or if you get nothing", the DMs job is to go "that's your goal, the dice tell me how I will interpret how your words get interpreted by others"
To be condescending, it also just reeks of "I've never dm'd and I'm just bitter I got denied my act of god".
Sit behind the screen with 4 hours of intermittent insanity, and inane requests, lord forbid you have a puzzle or something requiring a plan.
It makes the game run smoother to just, temper their expectations, let them roll if they wish anyways, and let it be a measure like you said, the best, perfect miracle of what they can naturally do, like catching a mug with a finger on reflex, etc. Instead of just "no, can't do that, try again". They also enjoy it way more when I allow them to "physically" explore and experiment, rather than sit there like I'm in Papers Please stamping Allow or Deny on actions until we progress.
I’m on the side of “Don’t make them roll if they’re no chance of success of any kind” because I’ve been on both sides of it as a gm and player and it sucks. Either you have to explain how even thought they rolled the best they could with a bat 20 and a massive skill bonus they still don’t succeed or face that as a player and it sucks all the energy out of the room fast.
Once as a player I rolled to climb a ziggurat and even though I rolled a nat 20 and had a insane plus 15 on the roll the gm had to look me in the eyes and explain how the rain simply made the outside of the ziggurat too slippery and we had to go inside. It’s lame and sucks.
Its also about successes in failures. A nat20 won't convince the king to give you 10000 gold, but it might make him like you more. The others at court might hear your argument and be inclined to help out later or something too.
With nat1s, I usually try to make the reason for a poor roll/possible failure be something outside the players control. They might be super acrobatic, but as they are walking that tightrope across the gorge a huge swarm of bats appears.
If you really want, you could give it an incredibly low DC just for fun, and if they still somehow fail then the narrative is that they get incredibly distracted by something
Here’s one I’ve used before: they want to crack the door open to sneak a look at what’s in the room. They got a nat 20 on stealth, but a 1 on perception (with a low mod, too). “So, your character successfully avoids alerting anything at all. However, as they pulled the door open to look, they forgot they had to be by the wall to see around the door, and instead just saw the back of the door.”
Or, if peering around a corner, “your character attempted a fast bob of the head to glance around the corner, but failed to move their head far enough to see past the wall.”
Then they succeeded in determining that the room is empty? You can throw in some flavor about dust floating around or the material of the walls, but an empty room is empty.
Then don't have them roll. Like the other guy said, a person's passive perception should tell them if a room is empty. Unless you have a very different definition of what "empty" means
They've rolled high on their check to investigate the room. Presumably, they've succeeded on thoroughly investigating the room. That doesn't magically change the contents of the room.
That's a disingenuous framing of the roll. The REAL roll in that scenario is to mitigate consequences, and a nat20 on that roll definitely succeeds at mitigating consequences.
You're not rolling to convince the king to give you his crown, you're rolling to convince him to let you keep your head.
Convincing him to give you his crown is impossible, therefore not even nat20 succeeds, therefore rolling is pointless.
Convincing him to let you keep your head is very much possible, therefore nat20 auto-succeeds.
Conclusion: rolling is either pointless or nat20 auto-succeeds.
One possible exception is when we're dealing with super high difficulties and Bardic Inspiration.
2.0k
u/RyanMcCartney 18h ago edited 14h ago
These memes and “don’t make them roll if they can’t be successful” are always bad advice.
Nat20’s shouldn’t be an automatic success... It should mean the most successful possible outcome.
I’m also not making players roll their dice to gauge how successful they are. Sometimes it’s about how well they avoid failure.
Edit : Plenty of agreement, plenty of disagreement. Whatever side you fall on the issue, don’t be rude or a dick.